If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Any form of correction, effectively communicating "no" when a dog does something undesired. In my video, I whistle & say "no" two times (when she breaks & when she refused a cast in water). Both are -r

Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.

If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.

Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.

This from wikipedia:

Here the terms positive and negative are not used in their popular sense, but rather: positive refers to addition, and negative refers to subtraction.What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence positive punishment is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:

Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.

Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.

Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Eug, you and I are on the same page. I do not think that dogs disobey. It is not in their nature. They have spent the last 15,000 years evolving from a wild wolf in the forest to a valued companion living in the house. That move from forest to the fringe of the village fire to the yard and then into the house came about through breeding selection as dogs became more useful and more pleasing to humans.Dogs do not disobey. They do fail to grasp the task to be performed when it is not adequately communicated, and they do fail to perform a task for which they have not been adequately prepared. Both of those instances are the trainer’s responsibility.

I agree with you guys here and preach this to pet dog clients on an almost daily basis. I tend to say that if a dog isn't performing a known task reliably, they aren't fully conditioned yet, which is pretty much the same as Robert saying they "haven't been adequately prepared". I happens that I have no issue whatsoever with using aversives to condition certain behaviors, especially at a distance, when the e-collar vastly improves my timing. Even in heeling, the pinch collar and lead approach in conjunction with rewards produces a reliable result much quicker and easier than using rewards alone, particularly when the dog is a lower drive critter.

I have definitely learned to balance back in the direction of rewards, adding more and more of them as I go along in my evolution as a trainer. I doubt I'll ever exclude the use of aversives in my training though and believe pretty strongly that those who claim to be +r only are simply ignoring the punishments they do employ. I think you'd have to never even put a collar on a dog to be purely +r, and I don't see that happening very often.

I've asked many people to allow me to put a harness or collar and leash on them to see how they liked it. Haven't had a taker yet.

Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL

So Cory, you're saying that if strong instinct is involved, it's not disobedience because he's become temporarily insane?
Hmmm.....I've seen a couple of dogs become temporarily insane when there's a bird involved due to very strong instinct. Especially if the shot was missed and the bird is flying away.
Really I was just playing devil's advocate and saying that there are, in my humble and often wrong opinion, some instances in which a dog does deliberately disobey you. His desires override his training.

Kennel Maiden, I had to laugh because there is absolutely no "positive reinforcement" that I could offer him that would override that urge, which I think was your point! I have, however, found that fear of being killed (exaggerating) if he doesn't knock it off will, in fact, cause him to stop.

Originally Posted by FinnLandR

Or, has his hard-wired drive to procreate over-ridden any possible training and understanding he has, and has he ala irresistible impulse, become temporarily insane?

(Similar to the mother whose drive to protect her child causes her to kill another person, when she can't normally even bring herself to kill the spider in the kitchen; extreme example, I know, but one of the few where irresistible impulse has actually been found to be "true".)

I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.

Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.

But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...

I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.

So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.

With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').

Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.

Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!.... : may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.)

Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions??

KM Yes I use words to convey what I am expecting and use “good” “yes” for praise.

Attrition is probably the way I would go to correct first or simplify. If we have an issue (loopy sit) I return to pile work no force! And practice whistle sits on the way out to the pile to decrease the momentum and get the quick sits. Just my way of doing things IMHO. I am really looking to make sure he understands what I am asking. May have to reteach. Again use positive comments for praise.

You are correct KM to have the dog well versed on land before attempting water. I practice lining drills and through attrition and simplifying get the dog to look out himself , then I put my hand down tweak and say "dead bird" "good" or "yes that is it" to cue him.

I am guilty of saying "no leave it". I run the mark on one side and it is a poison bird I say "leave it" and heel him to the other side and run the blind. Works well for me IMHO

And again like you I would stress doing land work first. Not saying any of this the only way but it works for me IMHO

Kennel Maiden,
I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for taking the time to post. If you're still following this thread, I'd be very interested in learning a little bit more about the methods you use to train for blind retrieves, in particular how you begin training young dogs. Thank you!

Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.

If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.

Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.

This from wikipedia:

Here the terms positive and negative are not used in their popular sense, but rather: positive refers to addition, and negative refers to subtraction.What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence positive punishment is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:

Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.

Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.

Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Sometimes all these positive and negative discussions get so confusing that it leads me to wonder if it is even worth worrying about for the amateur trainer or possibly any retriever trainer. I try to follow the Lardy system and the following is right out of his TRT video:
"An animal behaviorist came out to watch us train and we were working on a simple lining to the pile drill and in the process of lining to the pile, we used positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment and to distinguish which part of the training was which type of training would require a whole days discussion. Our training involves punishment, R+, R-, all of those. We are not hung up on those terms and will not dissect our training as to what is occurring at that moment. We are not in a laboratory and within a one minute span of training, we will have used all three of those and these dogs are smart enough to adapt to different kinds of timing and different types of correction all within that minute. I will avoid those terms because I will use them incorrectly if I do. I also will not use the terms avoidance training and escape training. If you're training laboratory rats to push a lever, you can distinguish when those terms apply to what types of training. But when you're training retrievers to perform the tasks we're doing, you go in and out of all of those types of training."

Is the goal to have a well trained retriever or prove a theory through the scientific process? At the end of the day I think this stuff is cool to read about in a good internet debate but am really starting to think it may be more worthwhile to focus on the task at hand (training) and leave the rest to the scientists. My point is that maybe these discussions do more harm than good when the majority of us try to figure out how it applies to our training instead of just training!

Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL

I truly understand Tito's behavior---highest value reward.

I think this is called instinctive drift.

Last edited by gdgnyc; 12-08-2012 at 11:22 AM.

"I love the rod and gun and where they take me."

"Do not judge a man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins."